As Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and his daughter, Noida DM Medha Roopam, come under fire for alleged misuse of power, the Opposition has trained its sights on a Supreme Court judge whose son’s professional links to the Election Commission have raised conflict-of-interest concerns.
Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra has questioned Supreme Court Judge Satish Chandra Sharma’s decision to hear Gyanesh Kumar's daughter Medha Roopam’s preventive detention petition, alleging a violation of the regular roster. Similar concerns were raised by lawyer Prashant Bhushan and Cockroach Janta Party co-convenor Saurabh Das.
"India’s judiciary not above the Constitution & certainly not above scrutiny. Noida student challenged detention plea -listed before Justice Nagaratna with NSA roster. Same issue Gyanesh daughter plea assigned out of roster to Justice Sharma whose son is ECI’s standing counsel!,' Moitra wrote on X.
Reportedly, the son of the SC Justice Satish Chandra Sharma is the standing counsel of the ECI in Madhya Pradesh HC.
According to the Madhya Pradesh High Court website, Justice Sharma's son is a Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI), wrote Prashant Bhushan on X.
"He is also a Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Income Tax Department. He enrolled in 2017. Meanwhile, Gyanesh Kumar's younger son is also a Standing Counsel for the MP Public Service Commission. He enrolled in 2020. Shouldn't he have recused himself from hearing the ECI case and Gyanesh Kumar's daughter's case?," he added.
Not just the Noida incident, according to LiveLaw, Justice Sharma was part of the two-judge bench that heard petitions challenging the 2023 law governing the appointment process of the CEC and ECs. Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the case on September 23.
Justice Sharma opined that the case should be heard by a Constitution Bench. The case was referred to the Constitution Bench as Justice Datta had a contrary opinion. This caused further delays in hearing the case.
Also, Sharma's hearing of the petition filed by Roopam challenging the Allahabad HC order criticising her for ordering the detention of a student under the NSA in connection with the labour protest in April was also questioned.
DM Roopam had come under fire for the detention of Delhi University student and activist Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA).
Chaudhary was arrested following her involvement in a workers' protest demanding higher wages in Noida. She was in preventive custody for nearly five months.
The Allahabad HC quashed the detention, declaring that it was "illegal" and a violation of fundamental rights. The HC came down heavily on Noida administration's bureaucracy and ordered that ₹5 lakh in compensation be deducted from the salaries of the officials involved, including Roopam.
The HC ruling was challenged in the SC. A Bench comprising Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N.K. Singh stayed the execution of the High Court's strictures and the compensation direction.
The Lawyers’ Association for the Constitution has also questioned why Medha Roopam’s petition was assigned to the bench headed by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. In a formal letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the body raised serious concerns over procedural irregularities.
